end analysis in Maryland

42 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1965–2026 10 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (21)

Case	Followed	Cited
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Georgia State Board of Equalizationgreen scotus · 2007 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2012 2 sentences 2012No. 89 v. Department of Educ., 550 U.S. 81 , 127 S.Ct. 1534, 1543 , 167 L.Ed.2d 449, 461 (2007); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization, [552] U.S. [9], [20], 128 S.Ct. 467, 474 , 169 L.Ed.2d 418, 429 (2007). 2012No. 89 v. Department of Educ., 550 U.S. 81 , 127 S.Ct. 1534, 1543 , 167 L.Ed.2d 449, 461 (2007); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization, [552] U.S. [9], [20], 128 S.Ct. 467, 474 , 169 L.Ed.2d 418, 429 (2007).	2	2
Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Educationgreen scotus · 2007 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2012 2 sentences 2012No. 89 v. Department of Educ., 550 U.S. 81 , 127 S.Ct. 1534, 1543 , 167 L.Ed.2d 449, 461 (2007); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization, [552] U.S. [9], [20], 128 S.Ct. 467, 474 , 169 L.Ed.2d 418, 429 (2007). 2012No. 89 v. Department of Educ., 550 U.S. 81 , 127 S.Ct. 1534, 1543 , 167 L.Ed.2d 449, 461 (2007); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization, [552] U.S. [9], [20], 128 S.Ct. 467, 474 , 169 L.Ed.2d 418, 429 (2007).	2	2
Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co.green mich · 1965 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026The Court held that because a “manufacturer is best able to control dangers arising from defects of manufacture” and case law in Michigan had put an end to the defense of no privity, “certainly so far as concerns an innocent bystander injured as this plaintiff pleads,” such an injured person “should have a right of action against the manufacturer on the theory of breach of warranty as well as upon the theory of negligence.” Id. at 134-35 (footnote omitted). 2026The Court explained that this did not establish liability without fault because “a plaintiff relying upon the rule must prove a defect attributable to the manufacturer and causal connection between that defect and the injury or damage of which he complains.” Id. at 135 .	1	1
Seal v. Stategreen md · 2016 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025If, however, the language is ambiguous, we move on to examine case law, the structure of the statute, statutory purpose, and legislative history to aid us in ascertaining the intent of the General Assembly.” Seal, 447 Md. at 70 (citation omitted).	1	1
Montgomery County v. Deiblergreen md · 2011 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Montgomery Cnty. v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54, 60 (2011).	1	1
Davis v. Stategreen fla · 2013 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Even if an encounter between a police officer and civilian involves a private conversation and, thus, an “oral communication” 17 See, e.g., Davis v. State, 121 So. 3d 462, 485-87 (Fla. 2013) (discussing cases in which police officers fostered an expectation of privacy in conversations that took place in police interrogation rooms, where individuals usually would have no expectation of privacy).	1	1
Thompson v. Keohanegreen scotus · 1995 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U	1	1
Oregon v. Mathiasongreen scotus · 1977 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U	1	1
California v. Behelergreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U	1	1
Dubrowin v. Schrempgreen md · 1967 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015This is not necessarily the end of the analysis because, as the Kobrine Court noted, the Court has recognized an exception to the rule enunciated in Brehm and other cases: In Dubrowin v. Schremp, 248 Md. 166, 171 [ 235 A.2d 722 ] (1967), we limited that requirement to rights of way created by deed and held that a right of way, otherwise sufficiently described, could validly be created by a memorandum that complied with the Statute of Frauds,[ 10 ] i.e., a writing signed by the party to be charged or that party’s authorized agent. 380 Md. at 636 , 846 A.2d 403 . 2015This is not necessarily the end of the analysis because, as the Kobrine Court noted, the Court has recognized an exception to the rule enunciated in Brehm and other cases: In Dubrowin v. Schremp, 248 Md. 166, 171 [ 235 A.2d 722 ] (1967), we limited that requirement to rights of way created by deed and held that a right of way, otherwise sufficiently described, could validly be created by a memorandum that complied with the Statute of Frauds,[ 10 ] i.e., a writing signed by the party to be charged or that party’s authorized agent. 380 Md. at 636 , 846 A.2d 403 .	1	1
Moore v. Stategreen md · 2010 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Meyer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green mdctspecapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Wooten-Bey v. Stategreen md · 1987 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Crutchfieldgreen md · 1989 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
Gianakos v. Magirosgreen md · 1964 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008	1	1
Hill v. Cross Country Settlement, LLCgreen md · 2007 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008	1	1
Briggs v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000	1	1
BD. OF EDUC. OF BALTIMORE CTY. v. Ballardgreen mdctspecapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Lewis v. City of New Orleansgreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Brumfield v. Hendersongreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Downs v. Stategreen md · 1976 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (46)

Case	Cited	Years
Wade v. Hunter green scotus · 1949 2 sentences 2009This is because “jeopardy is not regarded as having come to an end so as to bar a second trial in those cases where ‘unforseeable circumstances ... arise during [the first] trial making its completion impossible, such as the failure of a jury to agree on a verdict.’ ” Green v. United, States, 355 U.S. 184, 188 , 78 S.Ct. 221 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)); see also State v. Crutchfield, 318 Md. 200, 209 , 567 A.2d 449 (1989) (stating that a hung jury is “considered to be the classic example of what constitutes manifest ne 2009This is because “jeopardy is not regarded as having come to an end so as to bar a second trial in those cases where ‘unforseeable circumstances ... arise during [the first] trial making its completion impossible, such as the failure of a jury to agree on a verdict.’ ” Green v. United, States, 355 U.S. 184, 188 , 78 S.Ct. 221 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)); see also State v. Crutchfield, 318 Md. 200, 209 , 567 A.2d 449 (1989) (stating that a hung jury is “considered to be the classic example of what constitutes manifest ne	3	1984–2009
Ray v. State green md · 2009 2 sentences 2026“If the language is clear and unambiguous on its face, that is the end of our inquiry.” Id. (citing Ray, 410 Md. at 405 ). 2026“If the language is clear and unambiguous on its face, that is the end of our inquiry.” Id. (citing Ray, 410 Md. at 405 ).	2	2016–2026
Green v. United States green scotus · 1957 2 sentences 2009This is because “jeopardy is not regarded as having come to an end so as to bar a second trial in those cases where ‘unforseeable circumstances ... arise during [the first] trial making its completion impossible, such as the failure of a jury to agree on a verdict.’ ” Green v. United, States, 355 U.S. 184, 188 , 78 S.Ct. 221 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)); see also State v. Crutchfield, 318 Md. 200, 209 , 567 A.2d 449 (1989) (stating that a hung jury is “considered to be the classic example of what constitutes manifest ne 2009This is because “jeopardy is not regarded as having come to an end so as to bar a second trial in those cases where ‘unforseeable circumstances ... arise during [the first] trial making its completion impossible, such as the failure of a jury to agree on a verdict.’ ” Green v. United, States, 355 U.S. 184, 188 , 78 S.Ct. 221 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S.Ct. 834 , 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)); see also State v. Crutchfield, 318 Md. 200, 209 , 567 A.2d 449 (1989) (stating that a hung jury is “considered to be the classic example of what constitutes manifest ne	2	1999–2009
Reiner v. Ehrlich green mdctspecapp · 2013 1 sentence 2025When reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, we must “assume the truth of, and view in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all well-pleaded facts and allegations contained in the complaint, as well as all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from them[.]” Reiner, 212 Md.	1	2025–2025
Schultz v. Pritts green md · 1981 1 sentence 2025And in Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1 (1981), the circuit court remanded the case to a local zoning board because the board had erred in considering evidence submitted after the end of the hearing.	1	2025–2025
Son v. Margolius, Mallios, Davis, Rider & Tomar green md · 1998 1 sentence 2025We also analyzed whether the arrangement between the law firm and the consultant constituted a violation of Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 5.4(a) or 7.2(c), “and was, for that reason void as against public policy.” 349 Md. at 461 .	1	2025–2025
Noble v. Bruce green md · 1998 1 sentence 2024Id. at 752-53 . 8 Madelyn argues that the public policy considerations justifying the strict privity rule do not apply to her.	1	2024–2024
Noble v. State green mdctspecapp · 2018 1 sentence 2021It found “that there [were] facts that distinguish[ed] Noble [v. State, 238 Md.	1	2021–2021
Maryland Overpak Corporation v. Mayor of Baltimore green md · 2006 2 sentences 2019We further observe that the deliberative fact-finding process utilized by the Council to consider the Application is similar to the process used in Overpak , 395 Md. at 22-23 , 44 , 909 A.2d at 238-39 , 251 , to approve a PUD amendment proposal, which we concluded was quasi-judicial in nature. 2019We further observe that the deliberative fact-finding process utilized by the Council to consider the Application is similar to the process used in Overpak , 395 Md. at 22-23 , 44 , 909 A.2d at 238-39 , 251 , to approve a PUD amendment proposal, which we concluded was quasi-judicial in nature.	1	2019–2019
Espina v. Jackson green md · 2015 2 sentences 2019Espina , 442 Md. at 322 , 112 A.3d 442 . 2019Espina , 442 Md. at 322 , 112 A.3d 442 .	1	2019–2019
Maryland v. Shatzer green scotus · 2010 2 sentences 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U	1	2017–2017
Howes v. Fields green scotus · 2012 1 sentence 2017“Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda .... ‘Our cases make clear ... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.’ ” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010)); accord Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U	1	2017–2017
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2016Id. at 329 , 99 S.Ct. 645 . 2016Id. at 329 , 99 S.Ct. 645 .	1	2016–2016
Asphalt & Concrete Services, Inc. v. Perry green mdctspecapp · 2015 2 sentences 2016The Court of Special Appeals noted, however, that “[this] is not the end of the inquiry.” Asphalt & Concrete Servs., Inc., 221 Md.App. at 261 , 108 A.3d at 573 . 2016The Court of Special Appeals noted, however, that “[this] is not the end of the inquiry.” Asphalt & Concrete Servs., Inc., 221 Md.App. at 261 , 108 A.3d at 573 .	1	2016–2016
Kobrine, L.L.C. v. Metzger green md · 2004 2 sentences 2015This is not necessarily the end of the analysis because, as the Kobrine Court noted, the Court has recognized an exception to the rule enunciated in Brehm and other cases: In Dubrowin v. Schremp, 248 Md. 166, 171 [ 235 A.2d 722 ] (1967), we limited that requirement to rights of way created by deed and held that a right of way, otherwise sufficiently described, could validly be created by a memorandum that complied with the Statute of Frauds,[ 10 ] i.e., a writing signed by the party to be charged or that party’s authorized agent. 380 Md. at 636 , 846 A.2d 403 . 2015This is not necessarily the end of the analysis because, as the Kobrine Court noted, the Court has recognized an exception to the rule enunciated in Brehm and other cases: In Dubrowin v. Schremp, 248 Md. 166, 171 [ 235 A.2d 722 ] (1967), we limited that requirement to rights of way created by deed and held that a right of way, otherwise sufficiently described, could validly be created by a memorandum that complied with the Statute of Frauds,[ 10 ] i.e., a writing signed by the party to be charged or that party’s authorized agent. 380 Md. at 636 , 846 A.2d 403 .	1	2015–2015
Beck v. Mangels green mdctspecapp · 1994 2 sentences 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144,	1	2014–2014
Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury green mdctspecapp · 2013 2 sentences 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144,	1	2014–2014
Klauenberg v. State green md · 1999 2 sentences 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144,	1	2014–2014
Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck green md · 1989 2 sentences 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144,	1	2014–2014
Diallo v. State green md · 2010 2 sentences 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 2014Leopold’s “argument,” which he mentioned but seemed to have abandoned in his brief, “could also be rejected out of hand because it is inadequately briefed.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md.App. 244 , 269 n. 15, 81 A.3d 460 (2013). " ‘[Ajrguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 693 , 994 A.2d 820 (2010) and citing Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999); Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 , 38 n. 4, 566 A.2d 767 (1989); and Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144,	1	2014–2014
Bruce v. State green md · 1990	1	2013–2013
Young v. State green md · 2005	1	2013–2013
Holbrook v. Flynn green scotus · 1986	1	2013–2013
Laing v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. green mdctspecapp · 2008	1	2012–2012
Joseph v. State green mdctspecapp · 2010	1	2012–2012
Walther v. Sovereign Bank green md · 2005	1	2010–2010
Williams v. State green md · 1991	1	2010–2010
Dixon v. State green md · 2001	1	2010–2010
Claggett v. State green mdctspecapp · 1996	1	2010–2010
Flores v. Bell green md · 2007	1	2010–2010
Richardson v. United States green scotus · 1984	1	2009–2009
Brown v. Fidelity Trust Co. green md · 1915	1	2008–2008
Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc. v. Franklin Square Hospital green md · 1976	1	2004–2004
Van Schaik v. Van Schaik green mdctspecapp · 1992	1	2004–2004
Ennis v. State green md · 1986	1	2000–2000
Dumornay v. State green mdctspecapp · 1995	1	2000–2000
Williams v. State green md · 1981	1	1987–1987
Robb v. State green md · 1948	1	1984–1984
Hoffman v. State green md · 1863	1	1984–1984
State v. Barger green md · 1966	1	1984–1984

Where else courts name it

CA 194 (1897–2026) TX 146 (1894–2026) NY 101 (1848–2026) PA 69 (1837–2026) IL 65 (1927–2026) IN 54 (1881–2026) NJ 54 (1955–2026) MI 54 (1910–2026) GA 51 (1878–2024) FL 50 (1909–2026) OH 49 (1858–2026) MD 42 (1965–2026) CT 32 (1972–2026) MA 31 (1929–2026) DC 30 (1974–2026) IA 30 (1886–2025) NC 29 (1883–2026) CO 29 (1960–2026) LA 28 (1945–2024) OR 27 (1959–2026) AL 24 (1909–2025) WA 23 (1964–2026) AZ 22 (1959–2026) UT 22 (1997–2025) MS 21 (1945–2023) WI 20 (1954–2025) NM 19 (1985–2019) KY 18 (1905–2025) KS 18 (1907–2025) VA 15 (1919–2023) AR 13 (1917–2025) SC 12 (1952–2025) MN 12 (1909–2026) WV 11 (2010–2026) MO 11 (1913–2021) NE 10 (1939–2021) RI 10 (1905–2013) AK 10 (1969–2023) TN 9 (1976–2026) ID 9 (1923–2024) ND 8 (1960–2022) OK 8 (1971–2017) HI 8 (1998–2025) VT 7 (1977–2025) DE 7 (1913–2025) SD 6 (1959–2013) VI 5 (2005–2016) MT 5 (2002–2025) NV 4 (2018–2018) NH 3 (2004–2022) ME 3 (1983–2020) WY 3 (1961–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check